Background
Kangol LLC, a clothing company known for its kangaroo logo, sued 25 defendants in February 2024 for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Most defendants were Chinese e-commerce vendors selling counterfeit goods on platforms like Alibaba. Unable to ascertain reliable addresses for defendants operating on online marketplaces, Kangol obtained court permission to serve Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Import & Export Co., Ltd. by email, a common practice in “Schedule A cases.”
In April 2024, Kangol emailed Hangzhou with a link to the complaint, temporary restraining order, and summons. Hangzhou responded the same day and engaged in settlement negotiations for months without ever appearing in the district court. After Hangzhou’s failure to appear, the district court entered default judgment in May 2024. Kangol subsequently collected partial payment from Hangzhou’s Amazon account. In February 2025, after learning of the enforcement action, Hangzhou moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that service by email violated the Hague Service Convention.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit held that the Hague Service Convention is exclusive and provides the only permissible methods of service where it applies. The court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the Convention permits email service in China. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court found that the Convention’s “mandatory language” functions as an exclusivity provision that enumerates permitted service methods and “excludes all other existing practices.” The court noted that Articles 11 and 19 of the Convention, which specifically allow service by other means when authorized by parties or domestic law, would be superfluous if the Convention did not exclusively control service methods.
The court determined that email service in China is prohibited under the Convention because: (1) no provision of the Convention explicitly authorizes service by email; and (2) China has filed an objection to service under Article 10(a), which is the only potential textual basis for email service as a postal channel. However, the court did not definitively resolve whether the Convention applies to these facts. The district court must determine on remand whether the Hague Service Convention applies at all, and if it does, the judgment was void for lack of proper service under Rule 60(b)(4).
Key Takeaways
- The Hague Service Convention is exclusive and establishes the sole permissible methods of service where it applies; unenumerated service methods are prohibited.
- Email service to defendants in China violates the Hague Service Convention, as China has objected to service under Article 10(a) and no other Convention provision authorizes email service.
- A defendant need not forfeit service objections by engaging in settlement discussions or delaying assertion of the objection until judgment enforcement, particularly where the defendant learns of the action through negotiation rather than proper service.
- On remand, the district court must determine whether the Hague Service Convention applies by examining whether the defendant’s address was genuinely unknown despite reasonably diligent efforts to locate it.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly affects intellectual property enforcement against Chinese e-commerce vendors, a common target of counterfeiting litigation. Schedule A cases—which name numerous defendants identified only in schedules—have frequently relied on email service to reach vendors operating on platforms like Alibaba. The Seventh Circuit’s holding that the Hague Service Convention is exclusive and prohibits email service in China will require plaintiffs to comply with the Convention’s enumerated methods or establish that the Convention does not apply due to unknown addresses. This likely increases litigation costs and complexity for trademark owners pursuing counterfeiters.
The decision also provides welcome clarity on a split among district courts regarding whether email constitutes a “postal channel” under Article 10(a). By anchoring its analysis to China’s specific objection to Article 10(a) methods, the court avoided that doctrinal dispute while reaching the result that email service is unavailable for defendants in China. The court’s reasoning aligns with recent decisions from the Second and Third Circuits and reflects the international consensus, documented in Hague Conference materials, that the Convention establishes an exclusive regulatory framework.